What Happened to Levi Poulter???

[diklik]

Once again, you repeat the fiction that copyright infringement equals theft. This is a fallacy repeated endlessly by porn producers as well. It is not theft, as a matter of well established law, per Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) where the Supreme Court specifically said that copyright infringement is not theft.

That was one specific case and may not necessarily construct a precedent nor be binding. Your citing of this case is obfuscating at best, since Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 dealt with physical pressing of vinyl albums of music, not the specific misuse of intellectual property, which digital copying and downloading of videos is. Any number of Supreme Court decisions have been ignored and not cited, as case law and specifics change. Several copyright infringement prosecutions (of videos) have already been concluded with guilty verdicts. I'm not a lawyer, although I have several close friends who are, and who specialize in patent, trademark and intellectual property law (copyrights). I'd sooner accept their instruction and opinion than yours. Both gents have clearly explained the fallacy of presumed innocence of anyone downloading something that does not have the owners permission for free distribution. Perhaps the first person to be charged would be the initial uploader to a site for others to access, as well as the site owner(s), however that doesn't absolve others.

For quite a while, because of your previous posts, I suspected you might actually work for or be a porn producer and quietly mentioned that to others here, some of whom also suspected as much. Your most recent foot-stamping j'accuse post above repeats the same tired arguments and legal fallacies that porn producers use and certainly seems to tip your hand more as to who you really might be. I also note that, in more than a year and a half here, you've never shared any material yourself.

Well, you and your esteemed associates couldn't be more incorrect. So tough shit if you don't like that; and my choosing not to post material is my business, no one else's. There's no requirement to post or make available any material. Please whine to the mods if that upsets you. This forum is for discussion and opinions. I don't agree with yours and you very obviously can't abide mine. Good. That's called having an independent mind to think with.

If you're not a porn producer or employed by one, and pardon my bluntness here, but what exactly the fuck is your problem? You come into a file sharing forum and lecture people against file sharing? You come here and beat your breast about how the poor porn industry is suffering because of naughty file sharers.

If you think it's so wrong, then what exactly are you doing here?

I take the occasional download, to enjoy the few videos that I prefer. However, I feel quite justified in pointing out my belief (sufficiently validated) that the collective downloading of unintended freebies is killing off the industry. And just to make a point, I feel like being here, so fuck you and the idiot's backs upon whom you rode to get here. I don't have any personal problems, other than an allergy to deceitful and disingenuous statements.

And, you really should get your facts in order. I have never lectured anyone against downloading --- rather I have asserted that it is not a legal action and does constitute an infringement upon the rights of the owner of intellectual property. My posts on the issue are solely related AGAINST those who assert that it's a free-for-all, as you do. So perhaps I am somewhat hypocritical in taking the occasional free download; however I also pay for memberships in various sites. I support segments of the porn industry which is an improvement over taking it all for free and killing the golden-egg goose. Like it or lump it, I do what I do. You're getting way too aggravated over a difference of opinion. Perhaps this is your own conscience sneaking past your free download-at-all-costs attitude. If the best that you can muster is to cite irrelevant SC decisions and rail against me personally, I feel less antagonism and more sorrow for you. Anyone attempting to defend themselves or justify their actions with irrelevancies is self-delusional.

 

[diklik]

One has to wonder why people on this forum, of all places, are so quick to believe anything porn producers say and jump to their defense about their alleged financial woes. One has to wonder why they even bother coming here.

I too have wonderment, and it's about YOUR personal agenda. You seem bent on encouraging everyone to post free and unauthorized copies of digital media. To obtain these, one must initially have access to the website(s) in question, meaning paying at least one month's subscription and having clicked past all the various warnings and admonitions that taking a membership is an agreement to NOT share the passwords or the actual content without the owner's permission.

SO you advocate breaking the law and breaching an agreement, anytime you feel justified, as when bitching about how much money a porn producer makes. Sounds like jealousy to me. Interesting agenda, and I hope that you have a competent attorney should you end up on the defendant's side of a courtroom. It could happen, and guys like yourself who are most vocal about their feeling justified in such actions are often the targets of prosecution.

I wonder what it feels like to walk around wearing a bulls-eye on your ass?

 

[iSlut]

I'm not a lawyer

Yes, that's patently obvious because otherwise you wouldn't make ludicrous statements like this...

That was one specific case and may not necessarily construct a precedent nor be binding.

Better consult your bosom buddy lawyers so they can explain the concept of stare decisis and how the case is both concrete precedent and absolutely binding. You clearly do not understand stare decisis nor the very foundations of a common law system.

You are not a lawyer yet you insist on lecturing me about the law and legal precedent, when I am a lawyer.

since Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 dealt with physical pressing of vinyl albums of music, not the specific misuse of intellectual property

Because you don't understand stare decisis nor how to interpret caselaw nor the role of the Supreme Court, your argument once again is woefully incorrect. Miranda v. Arizona was a case involving kidnap and rape. Yet the Miranda decision is binding precedent on virtually every criminal case. Why? Because of stare decisis.

Dowling is a widely cited precedent that has been used in thousands of subsequent cases. If you knew how to use Westlaw, you would quickly see that it's been cited as precedent in more than four thousand cases.

Several copyright infringement prosecutions

This phrasing suggests you don't even understand the basic difference between a civil case and a criminal case. Copyright infringement is a civil matter. A prosecution is a criminal matter.

concluded with guilty verdicts.

Ditto. Copyright infringement is a civil matter where there's no such creature as a "guilty verdict."

I have several close friends who are

Apparently not so close that they haven't explained the basics of stare decisis and binding precedent.

the fallacy of presumed innocence

Not withstanding I never said anything about presumed innocence, your diversion into "presumed innocence" once again suggests you don't understand the fundamental difference between a criminal and a civil action.

Perhaps the first person to be charged

Once again, you're using criminal law terminology in a civil law matter. In a copyright infringement action, a matter in civil law, one is not "charged" with anything.

I take the occasional download, to enjoy the few videos that I prefer.

So you're no different than anyone else. Your lecturing and hectoring is nothing short of hypocrisy.

So perhaps I am somewhat hypocritical

Just like no one is a little bit pregnant, you're either a hypocrite or you're not. You're a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if you download one or a thousand files. You're doing it, too.

Anyone attempting to defend themselves or justify their actions with irrelevancies is self-delusional.

Which, of course, is exactly what you are doing.

 

[diklik]

Thanks for your legal opinions. I am quite confident that, should you attempt to cite the Dowling precedent to defend against a copyright infringement action relating to unauthorized use of (videos) intellectual property, you'd find yourself in a losing position. Perhaps we'll all wait to see if that happens and then decide upon the merits of your citations of cases and precedents.

Perhaps your legal hubris leads you to incorrect conclusions. You wouldn't be the first practitioner at law to make such an error, nor the last.

 

[iSlut]

I am quite confident that, should you attempt to cite the Dowling precedent

Considering you don't even understand the fundamentals of stare decisis nor how precedent works nor the basic differences between criminal and civil actions, what is one supposed to take away from your "confidence" about legal precedent? You've never drafted a legal pleading in your life, yet you're "quite confident" you know how it works? Hubris indeed.

 

[diklik]

Considering you don't even understand the fundamentals of stare decisis nor how precedent works nor the basic differences between criminal and civil actions, what is one supposed to take away from your "confidence" about legal precedent? You've never drafted a legal pleading in your life, yet you're "quite confident" you know how it works? Hubris indeed.

I find two things both interesting and very telling: the first is that stare decisis is not quite as cut and dried as you paint it - and I had the benefit of reviewing a number of cases and journals, including Westlaw - courtesy of a legal specialist. I will not further tilt at your supposed legal windmills on that issue - as I am comfortable that you are not on the certain and sure ground you claim to be.

Secondly, you began these ad hominem personal attacks when I politely questioned your proof (your claimed knowledge) of who had paid for someone's palatial home. That alone does indicate your lack of real proof, as you cite hearsay in the press, not validated ownership doents. You mentioned how foolish you took people to be for believing press releases (related to porn producers supposed lack of profits) ; and you should have heeded that advice yourself.

You're a needy soul, you need to trot out your legal credentials to puff yourself up, but you fail to heed your own admonitions about the credibility of quoted "evidence". I continue to be singularly unimpressed with anything you've stated.

 

[iSlut]

I had the benefit of reviewing a number of cases and journals, including Westlaw

A few hours ago you didn't even know what stare decisis was and now you're an expert. Wow, lawyers need three years of law school but not you. I guess you'll be taking the bar exam tomorrow.

you began these ad hominem personal attacks

Now that's rich. You called me a drama queen in post #8 before I even responded to you.

You're a needy soul

After your little rant about ad hominem attacks, you then proceed to make ad hominem attacks. I mentioned I was a lawyer because you insisted on lecturing me about the law when it's obvious you're seriously confused and misinformed about the subject. You can't even differentiate between criminal and civil law issues, as amply demonstrated by your confused responses above. But now, instead of responding on the legal issue because you seemingly realize you're in way over your head, you then attempt to make this about me.

If you feel the need to get the last word, now's your chance. Because I've obviously wasted a great deal of time on you and have no need to waste any more.

 

[JonnyFantastico]

No disrespect, but what does any of this have to actually do with the original topic at hand? I think both of you need to take a breath, back off and bit and stop making this all too personal. I understand that things can get heated, but there's no need to pick apart each other about the knowledge one may have or not have based on certain comments.

We're all adults here and sometimes, the most adult thing to do is simply say, "I agree to disagree" and back away rather than keep something like this going.

Let's just move on, OK?

 

[diklik]

If you feel the need to get the last word, now's your chance. Because I've obviously wasted a great deal of time on you and have no need to waste any more.

Wow, a lawyer who doesn't want the last word. Well thanks for the invitation and my last word to you on this particular issue is to have a wonderful day in whatever world you live.

 

[Nomad]

Thanks JohnnyFantastico for the excellent advice.

Let's continue this thread on the original topic. Alternatively, I will take it down.

And to get us back in the mood, here is an old clip I posted of Levi jerking off

http://www.gayheaven.org/showthread.php?t=20486&highlight=levi

 

[Deester]

MEANWHILE... Somehow Falcon got away with charging $50 for a 1 hour videotape. Did anybody buy them? You bet. As far as I'm concerned, the current rage for downloading is payback.

 

[whatever3009]

I agree with most of the arguments made by iSlut, his arguments are indeed logical and he seems to have an authority on the subject considering he did make a lot of valid points, I wouldnt pay attention to diklik's comments he is basically just another pretentious *****.

 

[hawtsean]

I agree with most of the arguments made by iSlut, his arguments are indeed logical and he seems to have an authority on the subject considering he did make a lot of valid points, I wouldnt pay attention to diklik's comments he is basically just another pretentious *****.

Diklik seemed to have a personal thing with islut, and that messed the thread up. However in reading all the posts, it did seem for a time that islut (who says he is a lawyer) was pushing the agenda of sharing porn vids from pay sites that make you promise not to do that. If I got that wrong, my apologies.

So maybe the rest of his stuff is on point - seemed well thought out - but the grey area of who really owns something and has the right to put it out there is troublesome. I don't know if those lawsuits about illegal copying and posting videos that were in the press a while back ever happened or were tossed out, but it would be nice if someone followed up and had further info on that.

 

[Behrluvr]

Your conclusion is based on an illogical statement. You assume everyone would buy pornography if they did not get it for free. I never buy porn. If it was not free I would not buy it still. I know many people like me who never buy porn. We do not cost pornography studios anything by downloading files because we never would buy their product.

Pretty much agree. Before the internet I rarely bought porn. I bought an occasional Be@r magazine, I've got maybe 6 VHS tapes. (all purchased out of the discount bin) No DVDs. There is no possible way I'd ever buy any porn if that was the only way to get it. The studios lose nothing from me. I'd never buy their product. As Houghton says, there are plenty of guys who only get porn 'cause its free, who'd never actually buy it.

 

[hawtsean]

Pretty much agree. Before the internet I rarely bought porn. I bought an occasional Be@r magazine, I've got maybe 6 VHS tapes. (all purchased out of the discount bin) No DVDs. There is no possible way I'd ever buy any porn if that was the only way to get it. The studios lose nothing from me. I'd never buy their product. As Houghton says, there are plenty of guys who only get porn 'cause its free, who'd never actually buy it.

Not sure if I'm stepping on my cock here, but that argument seems to play into the hands of the big video producers who want to sue everyone's ass for (supposedly) illegally using their stuff. If I understand it correctly, the producers are against someone copying their product and then posting it for others to use for free. If they have the absolute right to charge, then maybe they can bitch about losing money for every free view. Not certain if that makes sense or is within their legal power, but the way those sites talk about copyright and penalties and so on, they must have some lawyer advising them - and there must be some law that appears to give them the power to demand control.

 

[topdog]

What happened to the thread What Happened to Levi Poulter????

:?

 

[hawtsean]

What happened to the thread What Happened to Levi Poulter????

:?

I think it got hijacked by a cross-discussion of what, who and how regarding that porn ex-star and some of the esoterics of copyright and the ethics of using free (and supposedly) illegal downloads vs purchasing righteous copies from the authorized vendor. I guess it hinged on Poulter claiming he was losing money due to internet proliferation of illegal downloads of his stuff, and despite his apparent outward trappings of richness, his business was in the toilet - so he claimed. I think that a good deal of debate on that point distracted from the initial intent of the thread.

 

[RussianVers]

Okay, I didn't read most of the tread and don't know how it devolved into whatever it devolved into. But about Levi Poulter's site: I subscribed to it briefly and frankly didn't find it very interesting. He's hot, but the videos he put on there had very little action, so I stopped subscribing. So maybe he was losing money because he wasn't putting out product people wanted to pay for? I can speak for myself: I didn't think his site was worth the money.

 

[iryhousen]

I didn't think his site was very interesting either, but I think he's very hot. He did a solo with MAP, so I thought he would do more films with them. I'd like to see him with Neil Stevens. There's an English bodybuilder named Adam Charlton who also has a site where he promises a little more than what's on his Youtube videos, but I don't think that's worth it either.

 

[rick71142]

I agree with Islut. If they were really that broke they wouldnt be blowing Coke up their noses. They wouldn't film in Europe and the Middle East when they could easily film in Southern California.